GUYS! Just found out about a new crypto called K-CoinTheBomb and its really cool. Prob worth around $1 each but I am getting some insider info that this thing is going to blow up big.

Best part about it is that you can't spend it anywhere. But it will really look nice in your crypto portfolio.

PM for email on where to send your Paypal payments to.

50% of your posts are related to cryptocurrency. We get it, you think cryptocurrencies are a bad investment. I tend to agree with you, but you don't need to post it over and over again. If you have something interesting to share, that's fine, but posts like this are just obnoxious.

I have been telling people about STEEM on this forum for a while now. I have been blogging there since August of 2016 and now have STEEM worth around $85,000 with no outside investment. The only crypto I hold is STEEM as I believe that the uses for it will continue to strengthen it in comparison to the hundreds of coins that don't do much.

Steem now has a YouTube-like site called D.Tube which pays content creators STEEM coins. That includes a live-streaming off shoot that is similar to Twitch.tv.There is also D.Music for musicians to get paid for their songs.

There is SteemShot, which is like Instagram.

Steem has a Twitter-like App called Zappl.

Steem has created Smart Media Tokens (SMT) which allow other websites to use the steem blockchain. The first use of this is coming out soon using the VICE Token, and all Steem holders will get a 1-1 dividend in their accounts. VICE is a pornography site backed by large outfits like Penthouse that will pay video creators in VICE tokens. Similar to Steem, 75% of the upvoted reward will go to the video creator while 25% will go to those who have curated it by upvoting. Yes, this site will pay viewers to watch porn. And this is just the first use of the SMT's.

STEEM is the #1 transacted cryptocurrency per day. The Steem blockchain has ZERO transaction fees, can perform 10,000 per second, and only takes 3 seconds to confirm.

Steemit.com is rapidly rising in the Alexa ranking, up around 1300 worldwide and it is less than 2 years old.

There are currently about 263 million STEEM coins in existence, and it is inflating at a rate of 9% this year, dropping by 1% per year until reaching an inflation rate of 1% where it will stay. That means there will only be about 600 million STEEM coins in 20 years. Additionally, to be receive more upvote and curation rewards, users need to "power up" their STEEM. This process locks it in as illiquid. To make it transferable again, a user needs to power down - a process which takes 13 weeks with 1/13th liquefied per week.

This also creates protection against account loss as any hacker obtaining your password still has to wait 7 days before they can have any of your powered up STEEM. In a change from any other cryptcurrency, Steemit has a sort of customer service which can verify you and give you back control of your account if you lose control of your password key.

Since STEEM has so many uses, you can "delegate" it to other users in a rental transaction. Currently, I can receive a 40% APR for giving the use of my STEEM to high bidders. The STEEM never leaves your wallet, it is just temporarily controlled by the other party.

All-in-all, this is by far the most useful cryptocurrency coin I know of. This is why it is my only holding in the cryptocurrency market. The future of crypto does not belong to Bitcoin, it belongs to coins which have use and pay you for becoming a stakeholder.

Seriously though, the mods need to decide if they're going to allow chain letters, Ponzi schemes and pump-and-dump schemes to just post outright nonsense like this.

And to the guys trying to keep rational discussion out of their cryptocurrency thread - no, we will not stop reminding you that it's all stupid and that you're being misled, potentially making incredibly bad decisions about money. Others will learn from our posts and the post history will record the differing opinions of the time.

I think the most exciting thing about cryptocurrency is the development of blockchain technology.

Don't forget the reason we can have these advantages in technology are because of people who hate the banks and government post-sub prime mortgages. They see the banks and government as being corrupt, and that blockchain is better for whatever reason. That's how we ended up with Bitcoin in the first place.

Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, the advancement of blockchain technology is a revolution as it's not only used for the financial payments but also used for all kinds of things e.g. tracking energy (like solar power generation) to smart contracts (legal space).

The truth is, the tech whitepapers and such are beyond most people's comprehension. That's why fake coins like Dogecoin have gained recently for some ridiculous reason despite the fact it has no value. While the market has tumbled this year and I believe it will continue to tumble due to government regulation and so on, I believe if the governments intend to regulate it and there's backing for it etc that the prices of REAL cryptocurrency will go up for the long term.

According to Gartner blockchain still not in the 'plateau of productivity' in the hype cycle for emerging technology. They say that it will undergo a period of doubt called the 'trough of disillusionment' just like other tech. Other tech that is on the loop that they chart include VR, AR, machine learning, smart robots, connected homes/smart homes, autonomous vehicles, drones and more.

What I find interesting about the government race to cryptocurrency is that there are a number of government's already considering the use of digital currency. I also find it amusing that Russia has banned cryptocurrency but Government officials are allowed to trade it (hmm!). I think cryptocurrency will survive in the long-term, but there are definitely bad aspects to it even if you are against the system that are bad like money laundering and the ability to fund terrorism 'anonymously'.

Machine learning underpins most applications of ‘big data’. Smart robots are already making products we use and replacing factory workers. Google Home and other smart home products are being bought and used and generating profits. Autonomous vehicle technology is already integrated into many vehicles and constant incremental improvements are being made towards the end goal of totally autonomous vehicles. Drones are everywhere, for both consumer fun or business applications. I strap on a VR headset almost every day, and everyone who has ever used an Instagram filter has applied AR technology.

Honestly, what has blockchain brought us except quantum leaps in scam technologies and a ever-expanding roster of overhyped silly digicoins? Really think about this; where is it actually being applied for competitive advantage that would make it an undeniable, essential, desirable tool for either consumers or business applications? It’s had 10 years. Where is this happening?

There is just no comparison, it doesn’t belong on this chart alongside actual emerging technologies. If it belongs anywhere, it’s in the depths of Computer Science textbooks alongside other data structures and algorithms, detailing its very specific use cases.

Machine learning underpins most applications of ‘big data’. Smart robots are already making products we use and replacing factory workers. Google Home and other smart home products are being bought and used and generating profits. Autonomous vehicle technology is already integrated into many vehicles and constant incremental improvements are being made towards the end goal of totally autonomous vehicles. Drones are everywhere, for both consumer fun or business applications. I strap on a VR headset almost every day, and everyone who has ever used an Instagram filter has applied AR technology.

Honestly, what has blockchain brought us except quantum leaps in scam technologies and a ever-expanding roster of overhyped silly digicoins? Really think about this; where is it actually being applied for competitive advantage that would make it an undeniable, essential, desirable tool for either consumers or business applications? It’s had 10 years. Where is this happening?

There is just no comparison, it doesn’t belong on this chart alongside actual emerging technologies. If it belongs anywhere, it’s in the depths of Computer Science textbooks alongside other data structures and algorithms, detailing its very specific use cases.

Honestly, what has blockchain brought us except quantum leaps in scam technologies and a ever-expanding roster of overhyped silly digicoins? Really think about this; where is it actually being applied for competitive advantage that would make it an undeniable, essential, desirable tool for either consumers or business applications? It’s had 10 years. Where is this happening?

There are some out there.

The UAE is implementing it into their government processes and expect to save a bunch on document processing. They're also implementing it in their healthcare system to improve payments and medical record storage.

I know of another that is focused on logistics and supply chain solutions. Product tracking, cross-border shipments, anti-counterfeiting in countries where that is a major problem. They actually have a fair number of companies who they are working with. There are a couple in that space.

Another applying it to insurance to improve claims, payments, coverage determinations via smart contracts. They are already working with a fair number of hospitals and insurers in their market

Another looking to provide a solution that can easily connect and convert between different fiat currencies as a behind-the-scenes payment processor. They're already processing payments for places like fast food restaurants and airlines and are flipping that over to a blockchain solution once finished.

Another using it to improve the trade of renewable energy, particularly in microgrids, where logistics were difficult before.

All but the UAE one have (or will have once live) a native cryptocurrency, but I think "currency" is misnomer in those cases (actually, a lot of cases in crypto). No one is going to the store to pay with those currencies. That isn't the intent. The currency is used within the system to pay to use the network and/or to provide incentive to investors/individuals to take part in the decentralized network. It isn't really a stock because you don't own a part the company, but you do retain rights to some portion of network use fees for having stake in the network. Investing in any of those are still highly speculative. You are speculating that those solutions will be adopted with enough scale that you will be paid off with a stream of passive income, not all that dissimilar to dividends.

As far as the "10 years" thing, most of the smart contract work which those are building off of didn't really start development until a few years ago. The development of the particular solutions above didn't start until the last year or two. They are starting to roll out now. It doesn't happen overnight.

I agree that a currency for currency's stake (like bitcoin) doesn't provide any value. Many of the critiques of crypto as a whole are really critiques of bitcoin and its clones. There is at least some evidence that the instances I listed above do have value, at least there are real-life companies who feel that way and have partnerships to be users of the technology.

We'll see though. It might work. It might fail. I'm interested in keeping up with it.

Most/all 'applications' of blockchain, when you actually pick through them and apply a bit of critical thinking, turn out to be not blockchain (eg just databases, nothing new), low-level trials that don't go anywhere, or literally just empty hype, a press release or something that gets massively overblown by pro-crypto news sources.

Smart contracts (immutable programs run off the blockchain) are a terrible idea right from the start as has been demonstrate by several multiple-hundred-million-dollar failures. Programs will have bugs and need to be kept updated and modified and human decision making should always be kept in the loop.

These vague rumors, low-level trial programs and mislabeled backend data structures are not blockchain 'just starting to roll out now'. They are either deliberately misrepresented by advocates with an agenda or simply interpreted as 'good news' through motivated reasoning.

The best demonstration of what blockchain can achieve so far is CryptoKitties.

Literally beanie babies on the blockchain. Great stuff! (oh and even its minor popularity brought the ethereum network to its knees, aptly demonstrating blockchains' inability to scale. Freeing a database of the need for 'trust' is incredibly expensive and most of the time unnecessary.)

The best demonstration of what blockchain can achieve so far is CryptoKitties.

Really? What about ICOs? Granted, it has enabled some shady activities, but that doesn't diminish the underlying tech. The ability for small companies to raise capital outside of traditional channels is surely more significant than CryptoKitties. Don't you think?

The ability for small companies to raise capital outside of traditional channels is surely more significant than CryptoKitties.

One of the reasons for a code of law is facilitating coordination and reducing interactive friction. This is a form of social governance.

What's significant in crypto is we're starting to see algorithmic governance in digital space; decentralized consensus through protocol, reducing corruptive elements. How this will evolve will become readily apparent in time.

One of the reasons for a code of law is facilitating coordination and reducing interactive friction. This is a form of social governance.

I don't see the friction reducing benefit of ICOs over kickstarter or gofundme. I agree the internet has made it easier to raise money through non-traditional means, I just think cryptocurrencies are the least innovative way to do that.

The ability for small companies to raise capital outside of traditional channels is surely more significant than CryptoKitties.

One of the reasons for a code of law is facilitating coordination and reducing interactive friction. This is a form of social governance.

What's significant in crypto is we're starting to see algorithmic governance in digital space; decentralized consensus through protocol, reducing corruptive elements. How this will evolve will become readily apparent in time.

Crypto price slides have been arrested by an influx of four hundred million dollars in unverified funds flooding into Bitfinex from a company owned by the same people (something they denied until it was confirmed in the Paradise Papers) which has never provided any evidence that it actually holds the hundreds upon hundreds of millions it claims backs Tether. And this is what reduced corruption looks like?

I think posts like this are kind of gross. I don't know your posting history so excuse me if I'm taking yours specifically wrong, but I see this all over. On here, twitter and on other sites. So take "you" here as a royal you, if necessary.

The thing is, you can think crypto is a bad investment and not get a smile when the prices go down. Sadly, and stupidly, people have huge chunks of their lives tied up into this. There are people I've seen on reddit the past few days that have sunk their retirement into cryptos. Hope for change, hope for education but there are tons of people that are seemingly gleeful at the proposition of this coming crashing down.

In a way, it's similar to the FOMO attitude that recent "investors" have exhibited, just meaner spirited. "I didn't get mine so I hope you don't either." Or some sort of need to feel smarter than the rest and above it all.

You see this with some in the FI crowd that are "excited" for the next big buy opportunity in the stock market. Peoples lives, careers and retirements end over stuff like this. Someone might believe it's necessary, and in many cases these things open up a buying opportunity, but that's different than the reveling that you see around this board and others.

I posted this in another crypto thread when Tether came up. This article talks about last bitcoin price bubble 5 years ago. If Tether really is propping up the market you could replace "person" with "company" and we have the same thing going on.

Crypto price slides have been arrested by an influx of four hundred million dollars in unverified funds flooding into Bitfinex from a company owned by the same people (something they denied until it was confirmed in the Paradise Papers) which has never provided any evidence that it actually holds the hundreds upon hundreds of millions it claims backs Tether. And this is what reduced corruption looks like?

I'm uncertain about tether, being that it is centrally issued, especially by a non-authoritative entity. I had warning posts about it a couple of months ago.

Quote

If it turns out tethers is being fraudulently printed, there is a high chance it will severely impact the cryptoworld. You should do what you think is best based on what you believe.

Quote

There is huge risk in the space right now. Especially for bitcoin, due to potentially fraudulent tether. Proceed with caution.

As for 'reduced corruption', I refer to the protocol's governance. In a decentralized protocol, if one stranger sends a digital unit of accounting over to another stranger, the chance of any corruption with that transaction is infinitesimally low. The protocol reduces or mitigates corruption regarding its transactive (algorithmic) governance. For example, there will only be one hundred units. An entity owns one unit and sends it to another entity. Adhering to protocol rule and consensus, we can expect there will never be more or less than one hundred units. Ownership of a unit, within the protocol, cannot be tampered with by another. In a non-decentralized system, the intermediary is always a huge risk for corruption and displays less transparency.

I posted this in another crypto thread when Tether came up. This article talks about last bitcoin price bubble 5 years ago. If Tether really is propping up the market you could replace "person" with "company" and we have the same thing going on.

additional reading material about Tether for those so inclined. I'm well aware you can't take everything as gospel on the internet so draw your own conclusions. It was this sort of information that caused me to sell almost every holding I had.

additional reading material about Tether for those so inclined. I'm well aware you can't take everything as gospel on the internet so draw your own conclusions. It was this sort of information that caused me to sell almost every holding I had.

The only rational response to such massive and obvious systemic fraud.

There should be no ‘getting this thread back on track’ until it’s explained or exposed. To continue discussing crypto prices and portfolio holdings takes a cognitive dissonance which absolutely staggers me. Investing on a prayer.

The only rational response to such massive and obvious systemic fraud.

There should be no ‘getting this thread back on track’ until it’s explained or exposed. To continue discussing crypto prices and portfolio holdings takes a cognitive dissonance which absolutely staggers me. Investing on a prayer.

I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, to discover than an entirely new and unregulated asset class suddenly worth hundreds of billions of dollars for no apparent reason after being invented on the internet could possibly be anything except wholly legitimate and trustworthy.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"

is (most likely) being artificially supported by a virtual currency being printed out of thin air.

in my opinion it's only a matter of time before either this artificial support crumbles and kills BTC, or the high congestion/fees of BTC kills it. i think the latter may kill BTC first. if that happens i would not be surprised to see miners abandon BTC and move to BCH, giving it traction, and i suspect the people that are desperately inflating the BTC price are exactly the same people who sold all their BCH holdings.

Crypto price slides have been arrested by an influx of four hundred million dollars in unverified funds flooding into Bitfinex from a company owned by the same people (something they denied until it was confirmed in the Paradise Papers) which has never provided any evidence that it actually holds the hundreds upon hundreds of millions it claims backs Tether. And this is what reduced corruption looks like?

I'm uncertain about tether, being that it is centrally issued, especially by a non-authoritative entity. I had warning posts about it a couple of months ago.

Quote

If it turns out tethers is being fraudulently printed, there is a high chance it will severely impact the cryptoworld. You should do what you think is best based on what you believe.

Quote

There is huge risk in the space right now. Especially for bitcoin, due to potentially fraudulent tether. Proceed with caution.

As for 'reduced corruption', I refer to the protocol's governance. In a decentralized protocol, if one stranger sends a digital unit of accounting over to another stranger, the chance of any corruption with that transaction is infinitesimally low. The protocol reduces or mitigates corruption regarding its transactive (algorithmic) governance. For example, there will only be one hundred units. An entity owns one unit and sends it to another entity. Adhering to protocol rule and consensus, we can expect there will never be more or less than one hundred units. Ownership of a unit, within the protocol, cannot be tampered with by another. In a non-decentralized system, the intermediary is always a huge risk for corruption and displays less transparency.

This is a completely different definition of corruption to that used by more or less everyone else in the world outside cryptocurrency circles. Corruption in payment processing has pretty much nothing to do with the redirection of funds mid-flow to the wrong place for nefarious gain. It has everything to do with a swathe of other factors completely unrelated to the payment processing technology, none of which blockchain does anything to prevent.

This is a completely different definition of corruption to that used by more or less everyone else in the world outside cryptocurrency circles.

This being a crypto thread, with discussions about protocol and algorithmic uses, data security, integrity, and corruption is both a technical and social aspect. How do you define corruption that everyone else defines and why is this not related to crypto?

Quote from: runbikerun

Corruption in payment processing has pretty much nothing to do with the redirection of funds mid-flow to the wrong place for nefarious gain. It has everything to do with a swathe of other factors completely unrelated to the payment processing technology, none of which blockchain does anything to prevent.

There's no point in discussing this. Either we agree on what we're talking about when we discuss corruption in financial transactions, in which case cryptocurrency does the quadratic root of fuck all to address it, or we don't agree on what corruption actually means in that context, in which case we might as well be speaking different languages.

There is no endemic problem relating to corruption in existing international payment systems that is solved by cryptocurrency.

That's fine. I'll leave it with this: to me, the term corruption is a very broad concept and wide applicability.

My original statement basically said "blockchain can reduce corruption." You commented with a question about "reduced corruption".

I provided a description of it in blockchain governance. To expand it further, units of accounting can include various things, like land registry. There are parts of the world where people's property are taken from them due to personal interpretation of valid land deeds. In this situation, blockchain can offer nigh tamper-resistance auditable proof.

Things in crypto space that are sketchy/corrupt/not cool :- unregulated exchanges -blatant price manipulation by exchanges -concentration of majority of any coin with a very small group of people-concentration of mining groups- insider trading prohibitions of the stock market do not apply in crypto- bots manipulating prices-coordination of buying/selling by whales

Plenty of these items are well covered in articles by Bloomberg, NYT, WAPO, etc , I am not going to provide links someone with more time on their hands can if they wish. Blockchain can indeed prevent corruption, improve transparency, etc, etc but the entire crypto space is full of people taking advantage of others in ways that are clearly illegal ( although likely done) in other markets. Have fun , make some money if you wish ( I am) but don't drink so much Kool aid that you end up drowning. The post government/banking libertarian utopia that many crypto enthusiasts expect is highly unlikely. Some applications of blockchain technology will likely become valuable and of great use, but to be clear the entire market itself is just about a transfer of wealth from the many to the few. Same as the rest of finances. Make sure to take gains and only gamble what you can afford to lose, or don't play.

the low for bitcoin for the entire year, has been in january for the last 4 years.

It has not, however, been a near 50% drop in any of those years, and it's debatable whether the largest exchange had spent the previous few months furiously working to prop up the price in other years.

It's debatable whether the largest exchange had spent the previous few months furiously working to prop up the price in other years.

I think it's pretty clear that the price of bitcoin has been systematically manipulated by bad actors. This probably shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

It's a completely unregulated market in what are essentially penny stocks, and we've all seen how that story ends. The whole model is to promote positive media coverage to scare up new investor money with fomo on the next big thing, but there is no underlying value behind the asset. Every part of that sentence is exactly like penny stocks. How quickly we forget.

It's especially egregious to me that THIS community, of all places, has penny stock promoters. The whole thrust of this forum's financial advice is that you can't pick the next big thing, but you can reliably get rich by regularly investing in boring dependable assets that represent aggregate performance. You minimize risk by sharing it.

The entire cryptocurrency space looks like a cynical cash grab by brazen criminals. The exchanges are corrupt. The product is imaginary and the revenue stream is non-existent. Just like with booming penny stocks, all they have is a clever idea and an overhyped media presence, which they use to fleece the late comers. It's an elaborate scam.

Bitcoin is antithetical to everything this website represents. This is probably the wrong place to shill for it. And yet here we are, listening to poster after poster pushing their fomo agenda with promises of instant gratification. Get real, peeps.

This seems like a great example of why this craze is so overblown. Enhancing government transparency is great, but as far as I can tell blockchain adds absolutely nothing to this process. Canada could just publish this same information online, like they currently do. Even if you believe that the Canadian government is forging its records of research funding for some reason, blockchain doesn't help because they can still forge the same records when they create the blockchain in the first place. If you're worried that the Candadian government is trying to retroactively forge their science funding numbers, well this is what the internet is for! PUBLICation means everyone gets to see it as it comes out, and we collectively keep each other honest. We already archive all previously published data both individually (right click, save-as) and collectively (the wayback machine and its equivalents).

I'm familiar with four different databases that the US government uses to record scientific data and make it available to the public. Making any one of them unalterable would be a complete disaster. Science is by definition an iterative process, in which we constantly seek out mistakes and then correct them by annotating the original data.

Some of these databases are better than others at presentation and searchability, but in zero cases do I feel like the integrity of the record is the primary weakness in a system. They are already backed up in multiple locations. They already have professional DBAs who manage the records and facilitate the flow of data in and out. They are already have GUIs organized by theme, or by location, or by data type, or by project, or by date, or all all of the above. What does blockchain possibly bring to these complicated systems with decades of history and revisions?

Blockchain may still discover a killer app, but it's not currency and it's not data management. Keep looking, fanbois, I'm pulling for you because I like cleverness.

this idea is far from the low hanging fruit, but no one wants to make databases unalterable.

a cryptographic signature of any document, stored on a secure public blockchain, doesn't take up much space and can be used from then on to prove the copy of the document you're looking at hasn't been altered. revisions would be in a separate document, also with a recorded signature. it's a valuable idea in general, but yes perhaps not a lot of added value for government records in particular at this point.

i think micropayments might eventually be where cryptocurrencies can prove useful, especially since you can load say $5 into an account per week and not worry too much about fluctuations in market price. obviously, scalability issues will have to be solved:

how about micropayments for websites (say 1/10 cent per page load) instead of seeing ads? (yes something along the idea of the brave browser or google contributor.)how about micropayments for streamed TV show episodes instead of a monthly bill? or for internet usage by the MB instead of a flat monthly bill? for cell phone minutes? or printing mail postage? or maybe you could require a micropayment to receive email, to prevent a certain email address from being spammed.

there may be a couple ideas here and there that could be valuable... being bullish on cryptocurrencies i think something will pop up at some point.

There's no reason why micropayments would be done via cryptocurrency rather than simply through dollars or euro. Even assuming payments of below a single cent, it would be easier to collate the totals and bill to the nearest cent monthly than to go through the rigmarole of converting money into crypto and for the recipient to do the reverse.

In addition to that, it seems fairly unambiguous that subscription models are the way forward. I'm not aware of anywhere that micropayments have taken off, but subscription services are everywhere.

The total volume of Tether produced in the last four weeks now stands at a billion dollars. The last hundred million was produced just after yesterday's fall in Bitcoin.

I'm genuinely curious at this point: how can any of the crypto bulls maintain the belief that this isn't heading straight for disaster? At this point, the current crypto market is built on the assumption that Tether is backed by US dollars. It's becoming close to impossible to sustain that belief. What happens when the realisation hits?

It has not, however, been a near 50% drop in any of those years, and it's debatable whether the largest exchange had spent the previous few months furiously working to prop up the price in other years.

not disagreeing with that.

the way roger ver / jihan wu claimed that bcash was the "true bitcoin" coinciding with the CME launching btc futures was/is very suspect to me.

Even assuming payments of below a single cent, it would be easier to collate the totals and bill to the nearest cent monthly than to go through the rigmarole of converting money into crypto and for the recipient to do the reverse.

if you're collating payments into a larger payment then it's not a micropayment. the payer could cancel their account or withdraw their money or dispute a payment in the meantime, where with cryptocurrencies each micropayment would be final. i think that's the benefit of micropayments to the payee.

Even assuming payments of below a single cent, it would be easier to collate the totals and bill to the nearest cent monthly than to go through the rigmarole of converting money into crypto and for the recipient to do the reverse.

if you're collating payments into a larger payment then it's not a micropayment. the payer could cancel their account or withdraw their money or dispute a payment in the meantime, where with cryptocurrencies each micropayment would be final. i think that's the benefit of micropayments to the payee.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Do I have to list every bloody currency on earth every time I compare Bitcoin to existing currencies? Do I have to amend my statement to "There's no reason why micropayments would be done by cryptocurrency rather than simply through dollars, euro, sterling, kronur, kroner, koruna, forint, pesos, francs, rands, yuan, yen, dong..."

And on the subject of micropayments: it's entirely possible to build a micropayment system that's irreversible, by requiring customers to preload their accounts but allow for withdrawal of unused balances at any time. Then you simply pay the money instantly whenever a customer authorises a micropayment. Hey presto! But nobody does that, because nobody uses micropayments, because business after business after business has figured out that subscription models are superior. It's a more consistent revenue stream, the global nature of the internet allows companies to run a profit even on low subscription fees, customers paying a subscription are almost certainly less likely to stop using your service, and the act of paying for the subscription may actually drive usage (someone with a Netflix account may opt to watch more Netflix to make the most of their spending).

If you were starting an online company today, would you want to go for micropayments or a subscription model? Just about everyone in the market - from Netflix to the Wall Street Journal, from Dollar Shave Club to Spotify, from the Lancet to whatever particular flavour of online nudity you find most interesting - is using a subscription model, which is a pretty clear indicator. Even where subscription involves no actual payments - like on Youtube - you'll see reminders at the end of videos to subscribe to the channel, because the entire business model is built on subscribers. The subscription model is vastly preferable to both customers (a predictable and smooth cost for something from a consistently good source) and to sellers (a regular revenue stream with low turnover which enables far more detailed forward planning than day-to-day sales), and crypto isn't needed for subscriptions.

That means stock trading and crypto on the same platform with the same money. I see that as very valuable. I trade often throughout the day as I am able. Starting in February I could close out some positions at the end of the day, then continue using that money on cryptocurrency trading after hours, then turn it back into SPY or somethings stable earning interest while I'm at work. This seems like a win-win for Robinhood.

As of today you can already watch several currencies, starting in February you'll be able to buy and sell Bitcoin and Ethereum, more will be added. It's somewhat limited to certain states so far, but the rollout will continue. I think Coinbase is going to get killed over this. Why would anyone pay a fee when you can avoid it altogether?

There's no reason why micropayments would be done via cryptocurrency rather than simply through dollars or euro.

that may or may not be true in the US or Europe, but cryptocurrencies are in theory more accessible to more people in more countries.

Oh, for heaven's sake. Do I have to list every bloody currency on earth every time I compare Bitcoin to existing currencies? Do I have to amend my statement to "There's no reason why micropayments would be done by cryptocurrency rather than simply through dollars, euro, sterling, kronur, kroner, koruna, forint, pesos, francs, rands, yuan, yen, dong..."

oh you're right. we have all these great fiat currencies and banks already. i guess we'll wait around for them to introduce micropayments. those chinese banks love experimenting. /s

If you were starting an online company today, would you want to go for micropayments or a subscription model? Just about everyone in the market - from Netflix to the Wall Street Journal, from Dollar Shave Club to Spotify, from the Lancet to whatever particular flavour of online nudity you find most interesting - is using a subscription model, which is a pretty clear indicator.

so micropayments shouldn't be used because micropayments aren't used...? nobody uses micropayments because it's not really an option yet, as cryptocurrencies are relatively new and the big ones have scaling problems. i'm just saying there's potential there.

Phil, are you claiming that fiat currency is somehow holding back the micropayments concept from being widely adopted?

I mean, I agree that micropayments are a great way to solve some annoying problems. People have been talking about them for at least 20 years, AFAIK. But I don't see why I couldn't set up such a system just using existing currency(s). Which makes me think the roadblocks have nothing to do with currency, hence not much reason to think cryptos would somehow make micropayments a big thing.

so micropayments shouldn't be used because micropayments aren't used...? nobody uses micropayments because it's not really an option yet, as cryptocurrencies are relatively new and the big ones have scaling problems. i'm just saying there's potential there.

At the risk of sounding dismissive: did you read the damn post at all?

Did you get to the chunk pointing out that subscription models are a superior option for both buyers and sellers?

Or did you just decide after reading the very first line what your response was going to be and ignore the rest? I mean, you quoted the first line of my last paragraph, completely disregarded the rest of it, and then delivered a kicking to an argument I hadn't actually made. Subscription models are everywhere because they're a far better option for businesses and for customers.

I don't think I can adequately explain how infuriating it is to have someone selectively misquote a subset of what I've written and then argue against something I've never said, so I'm just going to reproduce what I actually wrote and what you wrote in response:

"And on the subject of micropayments: it's entirely possible to build a micropayment system that's irreversible, by requiring customers to preload their accounts but allow for withdrawal of unused balances at any time. Then you simply pay the money instantly whenever a customer authorises a micropayment. Hey presto! But nobody does that, because nobody uses micropayments, because business after business after business has figured out that subscription models are superior. It's a more consistent revenue stream, the global nature of the internet allows companies to run a profit even on low subscription fees, customers paying a subscription are almost certainly less likely to stop using your service, and the act of paying for the subscription may actually drive usage (someone with a Netflix account may opt to watch more Netflix to make the most of their spending).

If you were starting an online company today, would you want to go for micropayments or a subscription model? Just about everyone in the market - from Netflix to the Wall Street Journal, from Dollar Shave Club to Spotify, from the Lancet to whatever particular flavour of online nudity you find most interesting - is using a subscription model, which is a pretty clear indicator. Even where subscription involves no actual payments - like on Youtube - you'll see reminders at the end of videos to subscribe to the channel, because the entire business model is built on subscribers. The subscription model is vastly preferable to both customers (a predictable and smooth cost for something from a consistently good source) and to sellers (a regular revenue stream with low turnover which enables far more detailed forward planning than day-to-day sales), and crypto isn't needed for subscriptions."

"so micropayments shouldn't be used because micropayments aren't used...? nobody uses micropayments because it's not really an option yet, as cryptocurrencies are relatively new and the big ones have scaling problems."

...

Seriously: what is the point of engaging, if this is what comes back as a response? I wrote a clear and short explanation of why I believe companies have gone with a subscription model, added in an explanation of why I think it actually benefits consumers as well, and brought in supporting evidence that the subscription model is the best one available for businesses even when the subscription is completely free. In return, I get...strawman arguments and selective and misleading quotations, and no effort to discuss what I actually said. It's incredibly frustrating.